|
9th Circusquote:-Individual Rights- This is kind of an "oh, duh" thing, but I'm actually surprised the prisoner won.
|
# ¿ Jul 30, 2010 01:07 |
|
|
# ¿ May 14, 2024 07:19 |
|
mew force shoelace posted:In the end they won't show all the paper work and really dull stuff, but tv cops are very very bad people. It is only in that they are always right that their techniques seem acceptable. They solve most crimes by doing things that are flat out illegal. Which, I suspect, is why no one watched it.
|
# ¿ Aug 2, 2010 17:16 |
|
mugrim posted:I know this is the 'prison thread' but in terms of alternative corrections I'm working on creating a documentary following 5+ parolee's and probationers over a long period of time. If anyone has any ideas please feel free to share.
|
# ¿ Aug 6, 2010 01:41 |
|
21stCentury posted:Then again, i wonder, what does a banker have to gain or give back to society that needs him in prison? A Banker who steals billions and is found out is pretty hosed. What does jail time do to him? Michael Milken is back and making cash hand over foot. Worth $2.1 billion
|
# ¿ Aug 9, 2010 18:39 |
|
I've been told the NZ three-strikes law is nothing like ours. Like 3 strikes and you're in for 10. This is the country where your most infamous murders get like 35 years if I recall correct.
|
# ¿ Aug 10, 2010 06:00 |
|
baquerd posted:Spent on the machine? I thought the whole point was the private prisons are profitable. They are the least expensive possible "caretakers". State still spends a huge amount of money per prisoner to house them there. California spends almost $50k per prisoner per year at this point. (http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatecost.aspx?catid=3 -- hey make prisons spartan so they cost less people, check out how little is spent on prisoner support). You could send each prisoner to UC Berkley (incl room and board) and come back with a savings. nm fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Aug 16, 2010 |
# ¿ Aug 16, 2010 18:00 |
|
HidingFromGoro posted:It's not just Latinos who have reason to dislike Brewer- after all, she canceled S-CHIP leaving 47,000 low-income kids without medical care, and costing the state hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding. She's also kicking 310,000 people off of Medicaid, and still more cuts are on the way, too. Yeah, but the poor don't vote, even the few that we haven't disenfranchised yet.
|
# ¿ Aug 23, 2010 16:28 |
|
This is at least somewhat related to prisons. http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/08/21/2049509/report-questions-contract-public.html Essentially, Fresno county (which is much bigger than people think) is converting to a contract Public Defender to save money. California's government Public Defenders are actually pretty good (in large part because PDs are paid the same as DAs), but these contract outfits are just evil. This is sure to lead to more wrongful convictions. The Ciummo people are notoriously incompetent. Some privates I know who head up to some of thier rual counties are just shocked at the quality of representation. I know this isn't that shocking to places like Texas where most of the PDs are contract and incompetent, but this is tearing down one of the better systems in the nation. quote:As a top administrator for Madera County, Stell Manfredi oversaw the firm's work as the contract public defender for more than 20 years. Not on my watch! quote:Asked why he wanted to work in criminal defense, Ciummo talks about the excitement of trial work, and the colorful and interesting people he meets in the court system. He doesn't mention anything about protecting the rights of the accused. nm fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Aug 27, 2010 |
# ¿ Aug 27, 2010 05:33 |
|
a handful of dust posted:Oh my god, the loving comments on that story: Yet, if I went after their guns they'd be screaming bloody murder.
|
# ¿ Aug 30, 2010 05:56 |
|
^^^^^^^^ I would note that at least around here (Rural/Suburban Northern California) our District Attorney's Offices are more diverse than local law firms (so are Public Defender's offices). In some part, I think that graph is more reflective of the demographics of 50-60 year old lawyers (who are the higherups)than anything else. (This doesn't mean that these inequalities don't gently caress things up. Also, there have been arguments that black DAs are no more fair than white DAs when faced with black defendants. Paul Butler, a former black prosecutor in DC turned law professor, has discussed how he may have been even baised against black defendants that white prosecutors, wanting to prove that he "was like them." "Othering" is a huge problem in the criminal justice system.
|
# ¿ Aug 31, 2010 00:01 |
|
Lykourgos posted:
It was in reply to the prosecutorial misconduct post (you quoted it). There is a big difference between hiding evidence and preventing the evidence from being seen in front of the jury. For example, a prosecutor has a duty to turn over the criminal convictions of a witness. However, they may move to prevent the defense from entering the witness's DUI conviction and will likely win that motion. Evidence rules work on both end and have nothing to do with Brady et al. This persona you've been building needs a little more actual court time.
|
# ¿ Sep 6, 2010 04:06 |
|
quote:the recidivism rate for three years with no new felony convictions is 23.3%, compared to 32.9% at a traditional correctional facility.
|
# ¿ Sep 12, 2010 02:03 |
|
mew force shoelace posted:I wouldn't be surprised if just getting arrested and released the repeat rate was something like 20% and being inhuman to a person for 6 weeks raises it to 23% and 6 years to 32% more than anything, I wouldn't be shocked if their statistic was exactly right but for the wrong reason. However, I think that felony conviction on your record is just as damaging as prison time in re-integrating.
|
# ¿ Sep 12, 2010 07:13 |
|
mew force shoelace posted:That wouldn't make sense. The felony conviction would be there either way so it would be exactly equally damaging in that respect but then prison also does thing like torture people, given them huge gaps in employment, integrate them into gangs, ect. That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that having a felony on your record alone makes it extremely difficult to "go legit." Hard to get a job beyond menial labor. This is just as damaging as the effects as prison. Obviously these two team up for a double whammy of being hosed.
|
# ¿ Sep 12, 2010 23:24 |
|
mew force shoelace posted:I guess I agree, it's just weird to phrase it like that, it's just as damaging plus their is more bad effects can be rephrased as "more damaging" without implying either is not damaging.
|
# ¿ Sep 12, 2010 23:33 |
|
HidingFromGoro posted:
This is an extremely rare occurrence even in supposedly liberal states.
|
# ¿ Oct 29, 2010 06:09 |
|
lonelywurm posted:I do believe that 'Shang Yang' is a fairly unsubtle (though effective) gimmick poster. Come on man, can you keep it out of the good threads?
|
# ¿ Nov 7, 2010 08:59 |
|
Bhaal posted:A New Jersey man gets seven years for being a responsible gun owner. quote:she said she works with children who have mental health problems, and she has always been taught to call police as a precaution when someone appears despondent and shows any sign that he might harm himself. Stop calling the drat cops for every little thing and being shocked when the person you called the cops on gets arrested. Maybe this isn't how it should be, but it is the way it is.
|
# ¿ Nov 17, 2010 06:56 |
|
Woozy posted:This is the problem? Really? When you call the police, don't be shocked when someone gets arrested. Every drat day (ok, several weeks), I get a client who gets his rear end kicked because someone called the police, generally a family member, who is SHOCKED that it happened. If there's a real victim, call the police. If your son is "moody," don't call the cops, call a shrink. You call the police when you want someone arrested, whether it was the guy who shot you or the guy who broke your window. That is what they are there for. They are not mediators. They are not shrinks. They are cops. And they arrest people. (They also taze people). (Ok, this is not the police thread, but still) nm fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Nov 17, 2010 |
# ¿ Nov 17, 2010 18:13 |
|
Kawalimus posted:I would consider that a problem with the police, not the people. But people could avoid the whole problem themselves may times. If I crack my oil pan slightly, the real fix is replacing the oil pan. But that is expensive and hard in some cars. I can top off the oil, which is cheaper and easier in the short term while I get the money together to replace it. Similar to the police, we can and should always work to reform, but we also need to realize until we fix the problem, we need to do our own thing. However, there is a problem with the people in that many people don't realize there is a problem. This is why a jury can convict a man of resisting for trying to stop a bunch of officers beating him. He must have been doing something wrong.
|
# ¿ Nov 17, 2010 18:26 |
|
baquerd posted:Because work release is technically voluntary (from what I understand), you get to sign away a lot more than the government can take from you legally. I bet the outcome would be the same (but more outrageous) if she was raped. However, work release generally means that you basically pick up trash on the side of the highway and stuff like that instead of going to jail. From the quote quote:Amy Lynn Gillespie, of Cuddy and, later, Knoxville, was jailed in December for violating the terms of her work release by becoming pregnant. You work like 2 days a week instead of going to jail. If that is the case, i believe "violating the terms" is the wrong word. Work release, because it is almost always physical labor, has very tight restrictions on medical conditions. If you have a bad back or something, that can disqualify you. As can pregnancy. More likely, she didn't violate the terms, she didn't qualify for the program so she had to go to jail instead. The medical treatment is despicable, but the "probation" thing isn't really relevant or real.
|
# ¿ Nov 27, 2010 06:13 |
|
flux_core posted:The entire premise of prison seems loving stupid. The only reason we don't address it and try something completely different, only locking up the truly dangerous, is because we've had it for so long. Because it was never funded, it is a clusterfuck. It is basically a prison sentence on the installment plan because there is no real effective treatment provided. We need to understand that spending money on "criminals" in terms of treatment and education is expensive. Very expensive. But it is cheaper and better for society than than putting non-violent offenders (a category I might define more broadly than the average person) in prison. However, for some reason voters can't get this through their head. They want punishment and think education is "rewarding" the criminal.
|
# ¿ Dec 14, 2010 09:59 |
|
BigHead posted:What's even more of a mindbender is people's reactions to the "your kid" question: The sad thing is that this would actually happen to the children of the people who write these laws. It is fascinating how class can work its way into sentencing. And this is beyond the stuff not on the record. How so and so went to college, has a good job, contributes to the community through working with nonprofits, homeowner. How they started intensive drug rehab before even being arraigned (because they could afford bail AND a very expensive drug program). Facts to find an exceptional circumstance, and grant probation, I'm sure. Thats if the prosecutor, who likely knows the parents (or knows someone who does), doesn't think, well this is a good kid with problems and dumps it to a misdemeanor. It amazes me how much things matter. Two almost similar cases: 1. Upper class white kid aims a fake gun at another car. "Stupid kid poo poo, community service" 2. Lower class black kid. "He scared the poo poo out of those people. 90d. 60 if he pleas today." Goddamn. This happens.
|
# ¿ Dec 17, 2010 22:18 |
|
Tigntink posted:I'm sort of disgusted at the idea of opening a prison just to create jobs. And the cost - our state is falling into debt very quickly due to the taxes we just got rid of via initiatives/referendums. I could have sworn that when I was a kid having a prison near by was worse than a nuclear power plant. Very NIMBY. Why has this changed?
|
# ¿ Dec 21, 2010 06:22 |
|
I don't want to be accused of a low content post, but jesus loving christ, what can be said about this rear end in a top hat, again.quote:Sheriff Joe Arpaio has his own way of getting in the Christmas spirit: he has inmates perform Christmas carols for him "American Idol"-style and serves the winner a "full turkey dinner with all the real trimmings" as opposed to the usual gruel, which the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office says "vaguely resembles an average Christmas meal" and costs 14 cents. Pre-trial, IE, innocent people. This loving rear end in a top hat. He's mocking unconvicted people who are in jail on Christmas eve. I hope he gets Alzheimers, a fate worse than death. Fucker. nm fucked around with this message at 13:50 on Dec 27, 2010 |
# ¿ Dec 27, 2010 12:41 |
|
duck monster posted:Maybe I'm tripping, but isn't most of his inmates pre-trial?
|
# ¿ Dec 28, 2010 21:47 |
|
HidingFromGoro posted:[*]CA: Boost to prison spending comes at cost of cuts to education, health & human services To be fair Brown is also doing a lot to cut prison spending in the long term. He is going to abolish the juvenile corrections system, putting the burn on the counties who give out huge sentences to minors and will be requiring that counties, not the state house (and pay to house) non-violent 1st time offenders in county jails. His proposal may have a slight increase in prison funding this year, but long term it will shift the costs of housing many prisoners to the counties who prosecute them, hopefully leading to DAs offices limiting punishment as it will hit them in the wallet.
|
# ¿ Jan 13, 2011 11:33 |
|
VoidAltoid posted:It seems more like a fantasy court-ball where lawyers and judges are trying to buff their stats rather than make any kind of commitment to real justice or rehabilitation. It isn't true for all prosecutors or judges, but for prosecutors, one has to be strong enough and smart enough to go against his higher-ups. This won't change unless DAs stop being elected. "We convicted 98% of people charged" sells much more than "we found out that 15% of cases charged by the police were bullshit and dismissed them." There was a local DA election, where a fairly reasonable DA just squeaked by, where this DA was attacked for only convicting like 90% of cases charged. This isn't a number of trials won stat. This is a number of cases that went from charge to conviction either by jury or plea. This was a lower number than many people in the state. The DA couldn't exactly tell the truth, "the cops hosed up cases, charged innocent people, and charged stupid poo poo not worth our time," and we discovered this after charging and did the right thing ad dismissed that poo poo. That wouldn't fly. Of course DA stats are stupid. We had a guy charged with attempted murder. It was taken to trial. Jury found guilty only on simple assault (a very minor misdemeanor). When the DA publishes their trial stats, they count this as a win even though everyone else know they lost that poo poo.
|
# ¿ Jan 14, 2011 03:53 |
|
BigHead posted:According to the Innocence Project, 15% of wrongful convictions are based on paid informants. These are the guys who share a cell with the accused, then either cut a deal with the prosecutors or get straight up paid cash to testify that the accused "confessed in his sleep" or "spontaneously blurted out that he was guilty" or some such nonsense. That whole case above is loving disgusting. God, I miss Minnesota. Which is notable because almost every time the innocence project wants something the prosecutors give it. The prosecutors have been noted for working to release anyone they show to be wrongfully convicted. Minnesota is just awesome. They've banned consent searches, they require all confessions to be video taped. Minnesota attorneys take the oath seriously I guess "You do swear that you will support the Constitution of the United States and that of the state of Minnesota, and will conduct yourself as an attorney and counselor at law in an upright and courteous manner, to the best of your learning and ability, with all good fidelity as well to the court as to the client, and that you will use no falsehood or deceit, nor delay any person's cause for lucre or malice. So help you God." The Minnesota Bar Oath is quit different than most attorney oaths, it basically requires you to be a good person. I was sworn into the MN bar by a California Judge who was amazed at how different it was than the oaths of other states she'd sworn people into. This isn't to say there aren't horrible people practicing law in MN, but the MN bar has done a pretty good job making it clear that your ethics (and not just legal) come first, not winning, and they start it early.
|
# ¿ Jan 15, 2011 05:25 |
|
Manic_Misanthrope posted:When did Manfred Von Karma move into the real world? All these stories about the prosecutors are just... ugh. Now DNA has made it easier to exonerate people. The Ron Williamson case is from the early 80s. it involved a lot of prosecutorial misconduct, junk science, and even after his innocence was revealed, prosecutors fought tooth and nail to keep him on death row. this prosecution and imprisonment drove this poor man insane. He died in a nursing home a few years after release. There is absolutely no incentive for elected DAs to do anything but send people to prison. A number of good books on this: The Innocent Man: Murder and Injustice in a Small Town -- The only good John Grisham book (Non-fiction) I'm also a big fan of this book: http://www.amazon.com/Lets-Get-Free-Hip-Hop-Justice/dp/1595583297 Written by an ex-DC (black) prosecutor. Fascinating perspective.
|
# ¿ Jan 17, 2011 12:02 |
|
Tigntink posted:http://www.komonews.com/news/local/113845334.html
|
# ¿ Jan 17, 2011 23:34 |
|
The Reaganomicon posted:My claim was that the death penalty for minors was abolished because of bad publicity, not out of some moral or legal compulsions. JLWOP is basically the same sort of abomination and it's alive an well. Graham v. Florida http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-7412.pdf
|
# ¿ Jan 19, 2011 09:08 |
|
21stCentury posted:But the statistics show that's not true and, in theory, if you were to rehabilitate criminals, that wouldn't be an issue at all. Murder isn't some sort of drug one can get addicted to, the fact that murderers have rather low recidivism rates kind of proves that. Recidivism rates only tell half the story in many cases. It depends on what you're measuring. Returns to prison. Returns to prisons for the same offense. Returns to prison for similar offense (what are similar offenses). What about convictions without a return to prison? Out of state? Yadda Yadda. I think there are murders or whom LWOP serves a valid public safety purpose. Multiple Murders like Charles Manson (who doesn't have LWOP) area prime example. There are others where it makes no sense. The push for LWOP for all murders is certainly rooted in a combination of free and a desire to punish. Really, LWOP is a prime example of the problem with determinate sentencing. Few people now realize that before the 1970/1980s sentencing was much different. Sentencing was indeterminate. Someone would get sentenced to a high max number of years, but they started seeing the parole board very early. This, in theory, would allow the reformed prisoners to get out early and keep the unreformed prisoners for a very long time. The problem is that this didn't really work. Race, class, fear of releasing someone who might possibly maybe hurt someone caused problems. In theory, it is a much better system, but I wonder if it would actually work today. Along with the drug war, the end of indeterminate sentencing and mandatory minimums (which is what ended this) played a key role in ballooning prison populations.
|
# ¿ Jan 22, 2011 07:04 |
|
dr.gigolo posted:There are going to be several hundred and possibly thousands of violent young offenders added to California prisons. The state is going to close several of the state run Juvenile Prisons, belonging to the Dept. of Juvenile Justice (renamed from the California Youth Authority since CYA had such a terrible reputation). Some juvenile halls will take these kids, but the increase of 16-18 year old offenders into general populations at state run facilities will be significant. I'm not sure moving felons to jails is such a bad thing. Yes, there is overcrowding. There is overcrowding because people get put in jail for stupid poo poo and judges are reluctant to give low bail. This increases the costs of needless incarceration on the counties who are causing the entire problem. Maybe now the DA (who is a county employee) will think twice before asking for 90 days on a public intox or actual prison time (rather thn probation) on low level felonys. I am all for shifting the costs and hassles of mass incarceration on the people responsible. In this case, it is counties that want to be tough on crime. Also, in CA, with the exception of LA, jails are generally more humane places than our prisons regardless of crowding. They are run by the Sheriff who is much more likely to handle themselves properly than prison guards.
|
# ¿ Jan 22, 2011 11:57 |
|
21stCentury posted:Really, the only difference between a death sentence and a life sentence without opportunity for parole is that one of them takes longer before you die. It's the same thing as the electric chair, lethal injection, the guillotine. It's just that the tool used to kill the convict is time.
|
# ¿ Jan 23, 2011 07:24 |
|
Killer robot posted:I do grant that, and this is why I am against capital punishment, but it's also not an excuse to be inhumane with life sentences or to hand them out indiscriminately. Really though the major value of LWOP is that it kills a major argument capital punishment proponents use, that they might get out. The goddamn Mason parole hearings, even though he will never, even get let out, is pro-death penalty gold. "This guy with the swastika on his face might get out and when he hears a Beatles song he'll kill you! this is why we need to kill them all, so they never get out." Orange Devil posted:Quality of life is one of the biggest factors used when determining which patient should get a donororgan. Quality of life is a major factor in handling requests for euthanisia. So yes, quality of life is very valid, even when comparing life to death. Living can be worse than death, being in a state of perpetual torture is one of them. Ideally, you know because that won't happen in our lifetimes.
|
# ¿ Jan 23, 2011 13:11 |
|
Gorilla Salad posted:The only company in the US that makes sodium thiopental for lethal injections is stopping production. Unfortunately, this will slow the death penalty down like 2 weeks. 9I'd also note that Belarus is basically an evil dictatorship, so being behind them sucks)
|
# ¿ Jan 23, 2011 14:04 |
|
Fatkraken posted:The drugs designed for animals probably cause less pain than the current cocktail* Which is far more important to certain death penalty proponents than actually being painless. By making this as clinical as possible, we make it seem just liek a medical procedure and we dehumanize the whole process. If instead of lethal injection, we beheaded people we might be reminded that we're killing a human being.
|
# ¿ Jan 24, 2011 01:56 |
|
Holy poo poo posted:Yeah, whether or not free will actually exists is pretty irrelevant because we do know for certain that biology and environmental factors play at least a significant role in decision making. That alone is enough reason to favor a rehabilitative system. I think a rehabilitative justice system works, but I'd see that as one that sues prison as a last resort, with a series of less consequences like probation, jail terms, in and out patient programs and more before prison actually kicks in. Prison used to be where you'd go after a long period of attempts at setting you straight. Now we'll send you to prison for being a low level crack dealer.
|
# ¿ Jan 24, 2011 03:14 |
|
|
# ¿ May 14, 2024 07:19 |
|
TGLT posted:Most of the Western World has a lower recidivism rate than us. I think Norway, for example, had something like half of ours and most European countries had something similar. I don't have the numbers but they're somewhere in this thread. The primary difference between us and most of those countries is that our justice system presumes punishment to be justice, and thus more to be more just. Anyone know how or if parole works in these systems? Because recidivism numbers can be jacked up by returns to prison while on parole for stupid violations like a first DUI or failing a drug test for THC. I guess this matters to me because if we can't really have a rehabilitative prison system, we should stop sending so many people to prison and work on pre-prison diversion programs like probation, use of social workers, short jail sentences, drug counselling, and even programs like Delancy Street. I'd also be curious about what pre-prison process they have in places like Norway. I suspect you could reduce recidivism rates simply by delaying prison so that released prisoners are older (generally above about 35 even "career criminals" cease to be very criminal). nm fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Jan 24, 2011 |
# ¿ Jan 24, 2011 03:41 |